Monday, September 28, 2015

TEHRAN (FNA)–James Henry Fetzer, an American political commentator, believes that 9/11 was created by CIA, the Neo-Cons in the US Department of Defense and the Mossad.

“9/11 was brought to us by the CIA, the Neo-Cons in the Department of Defense (most of whom were from Project for the New American Century), which believed that, with the collapse of the Soviet Union, there was a unique historical opportunity for the US to build a world-wide empire that would endure for the next 100 years, if only we would move aggressively into the Middle East and project military and diplomatic influence outward from that geopolitically sensitive region, and the Mossad. It hasn’t played out that way, but that was the plan. The chaos with Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan continues unabated with Iran as the ultimate objective,” James Henry Fetzer said in an exclusive interview with Fars News Agency on the advent of the 13th anniversary of 9/11 attacks.

“We have massive proof that the Twin Towers were blown apart and did not collapse, which appears to have been done using a sophisticated arrangement of mini or micro nukes. It was not even possible that It could have collapsed, given its design and construction. WTC-7 came down in a classic controlled demolition. All four of the airplane “crash sites” were faked or fabricated, albeit each in its own way. None of them actually crashed, which means that no passengers abroad died in crashes. And no “suicide hijackers” were aboard them to cause them to crash, which means that the whole “War on Terror” was based on a false premise. 9/11 was staged to create a pretext for wars of aggression,” he added.

James Henry Fetzer is an American philosopher of science and conspiracy theorist. He is an editor at Veterans Today and co-founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth.

What follows is the full text of the interview:

Q: As you know 9/11 conspiracy theories attribute the planning and executions of the September 11 attacks to certain parties or claim there was an advance knowledge of the attacks among high-level government officials. Possible motives claimed by conspiracy theorists of such actions include justifying the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq as well as geostrategic interests in the Middle-East. What’s your take on that?

A: To understand 9/11, we must return to the dissolution of the USSR in 1990-91, which left the US military-industrial-intelligence complex without an international boogeyman to motivate the American people to continue to support vast expenditures on bombs, planes and tanks. A shadowy and elusive “terrorist organization” in the Middle East was the perfect replacement, especially since “terrorist attacks” could be arranged almost anywhere at almost anytime and, if the government declared that it was the work of “terrorists”, who would be in the position to contradict them?

The master plan was to draw the United States into endless wars in the Middle East on behalf of Israel, where no American interests were at stake. In the past, the stability of the region was viewed as paramount to guarantee the uninterrupted flow of oil from stable but despotic regimes. Indeed, no rational soul today would claim that Iraq, for example, is better off now than it was under Saddam Hussein, whose blunder may have been to abandon the petro-dollar. Gaining a foothold for international bankers in a region dominated by Islam, which tends to eschew usury, was another powerful motive.

Q: As we approach the 13th anniversary of the September 11th attacks, there still exists an almost complete blackout in mainstream media of the voluminous forensic evidence that demands an immediate and independent new investigation of that determining day. If the American people were to demand a new investigation into the 9/11, a common criticism would be that the government is not very good at investigating itself and when it does so, historically it usually either absolves itself of any alleged crimes or finds convenient scapegoats in the form of either patsies or CIA sponsored boogeymen. What in your mind would be required for a new investigation to be successful and to actually lead to some type of reform of the system?

A: The desire for a “new investigation” of 9/11 sounds like a great idea, but we could expect exactly the same outcome as the “new investigation” of JFK conducted by the House Select Committee on Assassinations in 1977-78, which led to its Final Report in 1979. In many ways, it was redoing the cover-up but doing it better than had the original Warren Report of 1964. By ignoring the massive blow-out at the back of the head reported by the Parkland physicians (which was fist-sized) and even the much larger wound at Bethesda (enlarged with a cranial saw to make it look more like a shot from behind) and reducing it to a small entry wound at the top of the head, they replaced a bad investigation with one that was even worse.

We have massive proof that the Twin Towers were blown apart and did not collapse, which appears to have been done using a sophisticated arrangement of mini or micro nukes. It was not even possible that it could have collapsed, given its design and construction. WTC-7 came down in a classic controlled demolition. All four of the airplane “crash sites” were faked or fabricated, albeit each in its own way. None of them actually crashed, which means that no passengers aboard died in crashes. And no “suicide hijackers” were aboard them to cause them to crash, which means that the whole “War on Terror” was based on a false premise. 9/11 was staged to create a pretext for wars of aggression.

Q: The US authorities described the event as coordinated terrorist attacks launched by Al-Qaeda and later claimed that Osama Bin Laden was the mastermind behind the attacks. Then American intelligence forces purportedly carried out a mission codenamed “Operation Neptune Spear” which led to Osama’s death. What do you think? Who did really orchestrate the 9/11?

A: 9/11 was brought to us by the CIA, the Neo-Cons in the Department of Defense (most of whom were from Project for the New American Century), which believed that, with the collapse of the Soviet Union, there was a unique historical opportunity for the US to build a world-wide empire that would endure for the next 100 years, if only we would move aggressively into the Middle East and project military and diplomatic influence outward from that geopolitically sensitive region, and the Mossad. It hasn’t played out that way, but that was the plan. The chaos with Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan continues unabated with Iran as the ultimate objective.

The changes in US foreign policy were complemented by subversion of the Constitution in implementing the misnamed PATRIOT Act, which has profoundly altered American society into a surveillance state in which freedom of speech and of expression has been severely constrained. History will record its gross misadventure into the Middle East as the last dying gasps of an empire that has depleted its military and expended its treasury for an unattainable goal, leaving an enormous swath of death and devastation in its wake. I wish the situation was more promising, but nothing good for human beings is about to emerge.

Osama bin Laden had nothing to do with 9/11 as he observed at the time. He was “our man in Afghanistan” and was visited by a CIA agent when hospitalized in Dubai not long before he died on 15 December 2001, which has been addressed by Nicholas Kollerstrom, “Osama bin Laden: 1957-2001” and David Ray Griffin, OSAMA BIN LADEN: DEAD OR ALIVE? It was politically beneficial to Barack Obama to resurrect him and kill him again, as I have explained in “Zero Dark Thirty; The deeper, darker truths”. American politics, sad to say, has become little more than a theater of the absurd.

Q: Do you believe there is a connection between 9/11 attacks and appearance of the so-called Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL)? Is ISIL an offshoot of the 9/11?

A: The ISIL phenomenon, which includes fake beheadings of journalist with real destruction of religious icons, has been astonishing in its apparent rapidity. Recent reports that its leader is an agent of the Mossad are illuminating, since, given the Assad government’s success in routing the rebels there, suggests that the forces who want to create instability in the region by removing secular leaders and allowing ancient and deep faith-based antagonisms to reassert themselves can only work to the benefit of Israel. New claims from the American government (that it might take three years to suppress ISIL) hint that we are being taken for a ride to create an excuse to use NATO forces to depose Assad and perform other mischief there.

So this appears to be one more ruse to destabilize the Middle East for the benefit of Israel. It is stunning how much terror and destruction has been wrought by that small state and its advocates, going back to the bombing of the King David Hotel in 1946 by Irgun terrorists dressed as Arabs, the air attack on the USS Liberty, the false flags on the Israeli Embassy and the Jewish Community Center in Buenos Aires in 1992 and 1994, and even attempts to blame the Palestinians for the atrocities of 9/11. The world has now been reminded of the savage nature of its government by the recent slaughter of the Palestinian people, which destroyed 40% of the land they control. Aggression by the US and Israel justifiably deserve the world’s condemnation.

As the founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth (2005), the editor of THE 9/11 CONSPIRACY (2007), the chair of the Madison conference (2007) and the co-chair of The Vancouver Hearings (2011), it has been astonishing to me to discover that the atrocities of 9/11 were not simply allowed to happen but come closer to having been produced as a Hollywood-style spectacle, with phantom flights, faked phone calls, and fabricated crash sites.

Anyone who wants to continue in a state of naive belief in their government as a nurturing institution that is dedicated to the best interests of the American people and to promoting their welfare should read no further, because 9/11 appears to have been a national security event that was approved at the highest levels of the Bush/Cheney administration, including the CIA, the Pentagon, the NSA and The White House itself. When consideration is given the the totality of the evidence, no alternative explanation is reasonable.

For those who find this difficult to believe, check out “Seismic Proof: 9/11 was an inside job” by Gordon Ross and Craig Furlong, who undertook the systematic study of reports from Willie Rodriquez, who was the senior custodian in the North Tower and reported that an enormous explosion had taken place in the subbasements even before there were any effects from the impact of a plane. They used very precise seismic data from a lab run by Columbia University and compared it with very precise FAA and military radar data and discovered that he was right: there had been explosions in the subbasements of both towers, which occurred 14 and 17 seconds prior to the hits of those planes on either tower. But this is only the tip of an enormous iceberg, which we can now seen encompasses the faking of the major events of 9/11, including the crash of Flight 93 in Shanksville, the hit by Flight 77 on the Pentagon, and both Flights 11 hitting the North Tower and Flight 175 the South. It seems incredible, I know, but the evidence is there and, as I explain here, we know who the perps were who brought us 9/11. They were among the most familiar faces on our political stage at the time, actors one and all.

(#1) Evidentiary Submission #1 of 5 by James H. Fetzer

At the Vancouver Hearings, held 15-17 June 2012, judges asked participants to write an evidentiary submission of at least two persons regarding their complicity in the 9/11 plot.

I submit the names of Philip Zelikow, Richard B. Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, George W. Bush, and Lt. Col. Steve O’Brien, MNANG, based upon the facts as noted and sourced below.

Name: Philip Zelikow

Title at the Time of his Offense: Executive Director, The 9/11 Commission

Probable Cause: In his capacity as Executive Director of The 9/11 Commission and the principal author of its report, Philip Zelikow caused false claims to be disseminated about the events of 9/11, including the following:

(1) that Flight 11 had hit the North Tower;

(2) that Flight 77 had hit the Pentagon;

(3) that Flight 93 had crashed in Shanksville; and,

(4) that Flight 175 had hit the South Tower.

Information published in THE 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT (2004) regarding (1) though (4) is demonstrably false because:

(a) Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) records show that Flight 11 was not scheduled for 9/11;1

(b) BTS records show that Flight 77 was likewise not scheduled for 9/11;2

(c) FAA Registration Records show that the plane corresponding to Flight 93 was not deregistered (formally taken out of service) until 28 September 2005;3

(d) FAA Registration Records show that the plane corresponding to Flight 175 was likewise not deregistered (formally taken out of service) until 28 September 2005; 4

(e) Pilots for 9/11 Truth has established that Flight 93 was in the air but was over Champaign-Urbana, IL, subsequent to the time it was reported to have crashed in Shanksville,PA ; 5 and,

(f) Pilots for 9/11 Truth has also established that Flight 175 was in the air, but was over Harrisburg and Pittsburgh, PA, long after the time it was reported to have crashed into the South Tower. 6

Summary: Planes that were not even in the air cannot have crashed on 9/11; and planes that crashed on 9/11 cannot have still been in the air four years later. Zelikow appears to have been selected for his appointment as Executive Director of The 9/11 Commission, at least in part, because his area of academic expertise prior to joining the Bush administration turns out to have been “the creation and maintenance of, in his words, ‘public myths’ or ‘public presumptions’”.7 In addition to using flights that did not occur and crashes that did not take place, specifically:

(5) contrary to (1), Flight 11 did not hit the North Tower;

(6) contrary to (2), Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon;

(7) contrary to (3), Flight 93 did not crashed in Shanksville; and,

(8) contrary to (4), Flight 175 did not hit the South Tower;

there is abundant additional proof that what the public was presented in THE 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT (2004) is itself a “public myth”, whose framework of four alleged “hijackings” and “plane crashes” is itself a contrived fabrication, which makes the person responsible for that report an accessory after the fact, as a person who assists in the commission of a crime by helping to cover it up.

Further proof that THE 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT was intended to deceive the American people includes that the government has not been able to prove the alleged “hijackers” were aboard any of those planes;8 several of them turned up alive and well after 9/11;9 and the phone calls alleged to have been made from the panes were faked10. Virtually everything it claims about 9/11 is false.

1 Edward Hendrie, 9/11: ENEMIES FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC (2011), p. 8.

2 Hendrie, p. 9 The BTS would subsequently revise its data base and thus make itself an accessory after the fact. See http://thewebfairy.com/holmgren/1177.html

(#2) Evidentiary Submission #2 of 5 by James H. Fetzer

At the Vancouver Hearings, held 15-17 June 2012, judges asked participants to write an evidentiary submission of at least two persons regarding their complicity in the 9/11 plot.

Dick Cheney

Richard B. Cheney

I submit the names of Philip Zelikow, Richard B. Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, George W. Bush, and Lt. Col. Steve O’Brien, MNANG, based upon the facts as noted and sourced below.

Name: Richard B. Cheney

Title at the Time of his Offense: Vice President of the United States

Probable Cause: In his capacity as Vice President of United States, Richard Cheney issued orders that a plane approaching the Pentagon not be shot down, which thus allowed the plane to approach the building unimpeded. This appears to have been the plane that flew toward and then swerved over the Pentagon, while explosives were set off in the building, in an elaborate charade, which was used as the pretext for the following “declaration of war”, and to justify invasions of Afghanistan and of Iraq; and subsequently made false claims about the events of 9/11. Consider the following:

Department of Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta tesified to The 9/11 Commission about his experience in the Presidential Emergency Operating Center with Vice President Richard Cheney, as (what would be identified as) American Airlines Flight 77 approached the Pentagon. According to Mineta, the vice president was asked about orders concerning the approaching aircraft:

There was a young man who had come in and said to the vice president, ‘The plane is 50 miles out. The plane is 30 miles out.’ And when it got down to, ‘The plane is 10 miles out,’ the young man also said to the vice president, ‘Do the orders still stand?’ And the vice president turned and whipped his neck around and said, ‘Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?’ Well, at the time I didn’t know what all that meant. 11

Commissioner Lee Hamilton queried if the order was to shoot down the plane, to which Mineta replied that he did not know that specifically.12 That interpretation, moreover, appears to be inconsistent with the aide’s concern. Since planes were being used as weapons, an order to shoot it down should not have caused any concern: You lose the pilots and the passengers, but not the personnel and the property that is being targeted. Instead,125 lives were lost at the Pentagon. 13

Mineta’s testimony to the Commission on Flight 77 differs rather significantly from the account provided in the 22 January 2002 edition of The Washington Post, as reported by Bob Woodward and Dan Balz in the series “10 Days in September”.14 This article reports that the conversation between Cheney and the aide occurred at 9:55 am, about 30 minutes later than the time Mineta cited (9:26 am) during his testimony to the 9/11 Commission. However, Cheney’s earlier arrival was independently confirmed both by Condoleezza Rice15 and by Richard Clarke. 16

Cheney’s remarks on “Meet the Press” (16 September 2001) support the earlier entry, 17 as does a newly discovered Secret Service document.18 The Woodward and Balz article thus appears to have been an effort to conceal his earlier arrival at the bunker, when the exchange with the aide occurred. Remarkably, the day after I appeared on “Hannity & Colmes” and reported Mineta’s testimony on FOX NEWS, 19 The White House announced that he had retired from the government. 20

SUMMARY: News leaks are a tried and true method for disseminating both true information (when it would be helpful) and false (when it would be more helpful). The Woodward and Balz article appears to have been intended to defect public attention from Cheney’s presence prior to the alleged hit on the Pentagon, since his order—that it not be shot down—facilitated the fabrication of a fake attack. It therefore reflects the consciousness of guilt, as did the abrupt “retirement” of the Transportation Secretary immediately after I publicized his story on FOX NEWS.

The Pentagon is among the most heavily defended building in the world. If the order had been to shoot it down, it would have been shot down. The plane now appears to have been a prop in an elaborate charade. This makes Cheney not only an accessory after the fact but an accomplice to the mass murder of 125 persons. While this aircraft itself does not appear to have been their cause of death (because they appear to have been killed by a series of explosions that simulated a plane crash), many of the dead were budget analysts and financial experts attempting to locate the $2.3 trillion Rumsfeld reported missing on 9/10.

(#3) Evidentiary Submission #3 of 5 by James H. Fetzer

At the Vancouver Hearings, held 15-17 June 2012, judges asked participants to write an evidentiary submission of at least two persons regarding their complicity in the 9/11 plot.

Donald Rumsfel

I submit the names of Philip Zelikow, Richard B. Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, George W. Bush, and Lt. Col. Steve O’Brien, MNANG, based upon the facts as noted and sourced below.

Name: Donald Rumsfeld

Title at the Time of his Offense: United States Secretary of Defense

Probable Cause: In his capacity as the Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld actively participated in arranging for the occurrence of the Pentagon attack and by making false claims about the events of 9/11, including the following:

(1) The SOP for interdicting hijacked aircraft was change on 1 June 2001 so that it would now require the personal authorization of the Secretary of Defense;1

(2) Rumsfeld claimed to be unaware of any threats to the Pentagon, where he was located during the 9/11 attacks, until Flight 77 crashed into the building;2

(3) Rumsfeld. Condoleezza Rice, and other officials claimed they had no idea that planes could be used as weapons, which is contradicted on many grounds;3

(4) The “official account” of the Pentagon attack is not only wholly unsupported by the available evidence but is neither aerodynamically nor physically possible:

(a) the plane is alleged to have skimmed the lawn at over 500 mph, but that is not aerodynamically possible due to the phenomenon of “ground effect”,4 which would preclude the plane getting any closer than 60’ of the ground;

(b) the plane is alleged to have taken out a series of metal lampposts without affecting its flight path, which is physically impossible, because they would have ripped the wing off the plane and caused its fuel to have exploded;5

(c) the alleged “hit point” in the building is too small to accommodate a 100 ton airliner, where there is no massive stack of aluminum debris, wings, tail, bodies, seats or luggage, and not even the engines were recovered;6

(d) even though the Pentagon is surrounded by cameras, the only frame that it has released shows the image of a plane far too small to have been a Boeing 757, so the government’s own evidence contradicts its own story;7

(e) after the civilian lime-green fire trucks had extinguished the modest fires, the Pentagon lawn was clear, green, and unblemished by any debris from the crash of a large airplane, which should have been widely distributed;8

(f) Major Gen. Albert Stubblebine, USA (ret.), who was formerly in charge of all us military photographic intelligence, confirmed that no large plane had hit the Pentagon based upon his careful study of photographic evidence;9

(g) Other witnesses and evidence, including April Gallup, photographic and video evidence, substantiates that no Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon and that, according to BTS records, Flight 77 was not even in the air on 9/11;10

(5) Secretary Rumsfeld predicts the Pentagon may be hit and is missing in action for at least 20 minutes before emerging on the lawn helping to carry the injured;11

(6) In his first public response, he accents that Secretary of the Army Tom White was responsible for “incidents like this”, shrugging off his own responsibility;12

(7) Tom White, a former Enron executive, had been appointed to that position on 31 May 2001, the day before the new hijacking instructions had been issued.13

SUMMARY: Even this brief and partial survey indicates that Donald Rumsfeld was too clever by half, appointing a patsy to take the blame the day before he changed the hijacking SOP, which appears to have been part of the plan to be sure there would be no NORAD response to the alleged hijackings. The claims made about “the Pentagon attack” are not only provably false but are not even aeronautically and physically possible. No reasonable alternative competes with the conclusion that Rumsfeld was a principal in planning the atrocities of 9/11, which not only caused the deaths of 125 persons who were in the building at the time but betrayed his responsibilities to the people of the United States as their Secretary of Defense, and deserves prosecution to the fullest extent of the law.

(#4) Evidentiary Submission #4 of 5 by James H. Fetzer

At the Vancouver Hearings, held 15-17 June 2012, judges asked participants to write an evidentiary submission of at least two persons regarding their complicity in the 9/11 plot.

George W. Bush

I submit the names of Philip Zelikow, Richard B. Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, George W. Bush, and Lt. Col. Steve O’Brien, MNANG, based upon the facts as noted and sourced below.

Name: George W. Bush

Title at the Time of his Offense: President of the United States

Probable Cause: In his capacity as President of the United States, George W. Bush participated in planning the occurrence of and made false claims about the events of 9/11 to conceal their origins, an especially revealing example of which is a statement he made implicating himself. On 4 December 2001, in Orlando, FL, he said the following about his visit to Booker Elementary School on 9/11:1

“I was sitting outside the classroom, waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower. You know, the TV was obviously on. And I used to fly myself. And I said to myself, ‘Well, there’s one terrible pilot.’ It must have been a terrible accident.”2

The alleged first hit on the North Tower took place at 8:46 AM/ET to be followed by the alleged second on the South Tower at 9:03 AM/ET.3 Bush’s motorcade had left the Colony Beach and Tennis Resort to head to Booker at 8:35 AM/ET.4 He arrived there at 8:55 AM/ET.5 Bush was told of the second hit at 9:06 AM/ET.6

Once he learned there had been two attacks, there was no rational justification to think the first had been “an accident”. Bush and Condoleezza Rice would initially feign that of the first hit, but they could not possibly have known.7 And he cannot have seen the Naudet video, which would not be broadcast until 1 AM/ET, 9/12.8

(a) An effort has been made to dismiss Bush’s remark about having seen the first hit “on television” as having been a mistake;9

(b) but he would repeat the same story during a town meeting in Ontario, CA, 5 January 2002, including having viewed it on TV;10

(c) a National Geographic Special that almost certainly included his recitation of his television viewing experience has been pulled;11 and,

(d) another—which is an obvious attempt to revise history–has been made available instead, where he recounts his story very differently:12

“I had been notified that a plane had hit the WTC. At first I thought it was a light aircraft. And my reaction was, ‘Man, either the weather was bad or something extraordinary happened to the pilot’. I then informed some of my staff members to provide help to New York City—whatever help was needed—and walked into the classroom”.

SUMMARY: President George W. Bush committed a gaffe when he spoke about his experiences on 9/11, candidly revealing that he had seen the first hit on TV, which has to have occurred while his motorcade was en route between Colony Beach and Tennis Resort and Booker Elementary School. This means that the Secret Service had a television camera focused on the North Tower when only those involved in planning the events of 9/11 would have had reason to watch the side of WTC-1. He could not have seen the hit on TV any other way. Eager to convey the impression he thought it was “an accident”, he revealed too much.

Removing “George W. Bush: The 9/11 Interview” and the substitution of another in which he contradicts his previous reports displays consciousness of guilt and the desire to tamper with evidence. But it was a risk that had to be run, because his having watched the first hit on Secret Service television was such an obvious indication of governmental complicity in 9/11. Given our other findings, such as:

(1) the fabrication of the four “crash sites” (see Evidentiary Submission #1);

(2) the failure to prove any of the “hijackers” were aboard any of the planes;13

(3) the faking of the phone calls alleged to have been made from the planes;14

and further forms of proof,15 it becomes increasingly apparent that the atrocities of 9/11 was a national security event that was approved at the highest levels of the American government, including The White House, NSA, CIA, Joint Chiefs and Department of Defense, where even the president appears to have been an accessory to the crime and to have committed treason against the United States.

(#5) Evidentiary Submission #5 of 5 by James H. Fetzer

At the Vancouver Hearings, held 15-17 June 2012, judges asked participants to write an evidentiary submission of at least two persons regarding their complicity in the 9/11 plot.

Lt. Col. Steve O'Brien

I submit the names of Philip Zelikow, Richard B. Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, George W. Bush, and Lt. Col. Steve O’Brien, MNANG, based upon the facts as noted and sourced below.

Name: Lt. Col. Steve O’Brien, Minnesota Air National Guard (MNANG)

Title at the Time of his Offense: Pilot of C-130H circling the Pentagon on 9/11

Probable Cause: Among the most striking and indisputable aspects of 9/11 was the utter failure of NORAD, the NMCC and the FAA to coordinate any military response to (what were alleged to have been the hijacking of four commercial carriers, spanning an interval of time from 8:14 AM/ET, when the first reports of the possible hijacking of Flight 11 surfaced until after the Pentagon had been “hit” by Flight 77 at 9:38 AM/ET, over 1:14 hours later, even though a response to a hijacking should have taken less than 10 minutes.1 The failure to follow SOP is so blatant that there is no reasonable alternative to a deliberate “stand down”.2

THE 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT (2004), minimizes the absence of response and the time available to scramble fighters as if it was an innocuous event.3 One of the most peculiar aspects of the Pentagon attack is how our nation’s military leaders could not have known that a plane was approaching the building.4 This appears to be untrue on at least two grounds: first, that Vice President Cheney had been informed by an aide that a plane was headed toward the building by an aide and issued an order that the plane not be shot down (see Submission #2).

Another is that Lt. Col. Steve O’Brien was piloting a military C-130H cargo plane (call named, “Gofer 06”) in the vicinity of the Pentagon, where he and his crew were reported to have witnessed the crash of Flight 77 into the building as well as the crash of Flight 93 into the ground at Shanksville.5 Since O’Brien is said to have followed Flight 77—and to have identified it as a Boeing 757—it appears to be impossible that Pentagon officials, with whom he was in radio communication, could not have known a plane was approaching. The “official account” cannot be true, since it violates laws of aerodynamics and of physics (see Submission #3).

At 9:42 AM/ET, the FAA directed that all planes in the air should land6—minutes after the purported plane crash—but Gofer 06 remained airborne, apparently to perform a task essential to the cover-up. That no Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon is not only established by the impossibility of the official trajectory—just skimming the ground at over 500 mph and taking out a series of lampposts without damage to the plane or affecting its trajectory—but also by the virtual absence of debris appropriate to the crash of 100-ton airliner: no massive pile of aluminum debris, no wings, no tail, no bodies, seats or luggage, such as would be expected.7 Not even the engines, which are virtually indestructible, were recovered from the site.

Photographs of the clear, green, Pentagon lawn—over 30 minutes following the attack, when a section of the building collapsed—display a stunning absence of debris.89 As even Jamie McIntrye reported live on CNN, there was no indication that any large plane had crashed anywhere near the Pentagon.10 Pieces of plane fuselage and other debris would show up on the lawn, even though no plane had crashed there, which raises the question of where it came from. It would have been awkward to have officers or enlisted men carry pieces of debris out on the lawn, but it would not have been difficult to have dropped it from the C-130H that O’Brien was piloting. One especially notable piece of fuselage has been tracked back to the crash of a Boeing 757 that had occurred in Cali, Columbia, in 1995.11

SUMMARY: Debris that appeared on the Pentagon lawn more than 30 minutes after the alleged crash of Flight 77 cannot have come from a non-existent crash and must have been planted by military personnel or dropped from the C-130H that was circling the building. When I explained to the BBC that it had to have come from the plane for its second “Conspiracy Files: 9/11 Ten Years On”, they featured Lt. Col. Steve O’Brien, who expressed disgust at the implication that he had participated in faking the plane crash by dropping debris from his plane.1213

But there is no reasonable alternative. The allege crash did not occur and any claims to have seen the plane hit the building cannot be true. It would have been impossible for the cargo door of his C-130H to open for the drop and the pilot be unaware of it; moreover, the C-130H is a special version with electronic warfare capabilities and may have played other important roles on 9/11.14 The evidence thus substantiates that Lt. Col. O’Brien remained airborne because he was “on a mission”, complicit in the crimes of 9/11, and actively engaged in their cover-up.

1 An excellent discussion is David Ray Griffin, THE 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT: OMISSIONS AND DISTORTIONS (2005), Chapter 11. “NMCC” is the National Military Command Center.

Jim Fetzer is a former Marine Corps officer, the founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth and a journalist for Veterans Today. He has written dozens of articles on subjects like 9/11 and JFK. [NOTE: This is one in a series of articles being republished since veterans today.com deleted them in a dispute with its Senior Editor, Gordon Duff, about which I have since written several articles.]